C
ckempston
Guest
So, what if someone starts studying Greek and the opposite happens? Would you be happy for them too?
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually I do. I asked you bfore to reconcile this for us:
So you are in agreement with the Mormons teachings on the nature of Chirst? The Presbyterians teachings on salvation? The Jehova Witnesses teachings on how Chirst died?The Seventh Day Adventist teacings that we MUST worship on Saturdays? The Luhterian teachngs on the nature of the Eucharist?
M
MrS
Guest
And some faith communities call it a “burning in the bossom”, or perhaps “in the Spirit”, or “slain by the Spirit”
Then they pronounce entirely different b eliefs.
Again… the Holy Spirit is NOT a divider.
If two people “feel something” and they disagree… at least one of them is wrong.
And that person was NOT led by the Holy Spirit.
.
C
cazayoux
Guest
Show me God’s visible, authoritative church.
A friend and I are both fluent in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic and we disagree on something in scripture.
Where do we go to find out if either/neither of us are correct?
D
djrakowski
Guest
Your reasoning is somewhat contradictory. First, you state that the Bible is authoritative, and when there are disputes over what some text of the Bible means, we have to turn to the church, which is an invisible entity of all true believers. If we still have conflicts (which we do, since no two churches agree on everything), then we have to go to the Greek and Hebrew. But we really don’t have to know Greek and Hebrew, because God will show is the truth by giving us a feeling in our spirit.
So it looks like you’ve given us several sources of authority:
- The Bible
- The church (but there’s much disagreement within that church regarding what constitutes proper Christian authority, as well as a diversity of opinions on how to interpret your first source of authority)
- The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (even though there are folks in all parts of the spectrum of Christian belief who still disagree, even after having learned these ancient languages)
- finally, it’s up to each individual to decide what’s right and what’s wrong based on what they believe God is saying to their spirit (honestly, that sounds like the Mormon missionaries who tell you to read the Book of Mormon until you feel that “burning in the bosom” telling you it’s true)
And if it’s ultimately up to the way in which I think God is speaking to my spirit, then why bother with divine revelation at all? And who can deny the truth claims of anyone else, Christian or otherwise?
D
David_Vestal
Guest
I think most sway from the Catholic Church because it means a dramatic change in their lifestyle and trying to live a holy life. I mean if you are Protestant you have no authority you rejects Gods’ Church you make the claim that you cant lose your salvation and to me that equates to a license to sin I have been told my protestant pastors that Jesus died for us so it is OK to commit murder and rape and theft and fornication because we cant lose our salvation that just makes my stomach turn over. Protestants accept the authority of the Catholic Church otherwise they could not believe ANYTHING in the Bible so they accept the authority on that part and reject the most, and I do scoff at the idea I read a few pages back that the church is invisible, truth is not relative so there can only be one. If you read the new testament it says the order for BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS, not pastors with a tie, must I remind you that Jesus and the apostles did not have the Bible back then so if the Bible is necessary to understand or make yourself your own pastor then what happened to the people before the Catholic Church put it together??? To say that the one can read the Bible and interpret it for himself for St. Paul warns, “That some read and twist the scriptures even unto their own destruction.” And that jumps to my mind their sad idea of assurance of salvation because if you are committing mortal sin and think its ok your saved its gonna be a sad judgment day for you. Jesus called us and His church to a life of Holiness and that means A PRO-ACTIVE life and doing things not Just saying a prayer that I believe in God and wham bam thats all I gotta do.
A
anamchara
Guest
Awantz, hang in there my friend.
you are correct in that some Protestants faiths have many of the truths. Although not the fullness of the truth as the Catholic Church believes they have. That is a hard one for many to wrap their mind around.I am a Catholic but find it irritating when Catholics who are trying to convince Protestants they are wrong will pull out the same old rhetoric “the Protestants have 30.000 + Churches” “The Protestants can’t agree on anything” blah blah…it’s unfair and insincere to put Protestants in this sort of light.
In reality, there are many Protestant Churches through out history that have actually combined their denominations to be fair here
The United Methodist Church for example was originally just Methodist until they combined with United Brethren and I believe another one but the name escapes right now.Also more recently:
I think we need to fair instead of trying to paint a negative picture of our separate brethren for the sole purpose of winning points for the home team.
It’s simply a difficult conclusion to come to that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But if you spend time reading the Church fathers and dive deep into history, it really helps as it eventually clicks in your mind.
:twocents:
A
awantz
Guest
Not if it is going to turn them away from the Lord.
A
awantz
Guest
I can’t answer those questions until I’m 100% sure on how those churches believe and some of those are not even Christian. So, chances are the answer is no.
A
awantz
Guest
Pray about it and you could ask you pastor/ priest or a bible scholar. Out of curiosity what are you and your friend arguing about?
A
awantz
Guest
Thank you and I’m glad to see there is another good Catholic out there.Awantz, hang in there my friend.
I am a Catholic but find it irritating when Catholics who are trying to convince Protestants they are wrong will pull out the same old rhetoric “the Protestants have 30.000 + Churches” “The Protestants can’t agree on anything” blah blah…it’s unfair and insincere to put Protestants in this sort of light.
In reality, there are many Protestant Churches through out history that have actually combined their denominations to be fair here
Also more recently:
I think we need to fair instead of trying to paint a negative picture of our separate brethren for the sole purpose of winning points for the home team.
It’s simply a difficult conclusion to come to that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But if you spend time reading the Church fathers and dive deep into history, it really helps as it eventually clicks in your mind.
:twocents:
C
ckempston
Guest
I can find you Bible “scholars” who will disagree on almost every subject imaginable. How do I decide which one is right?
Also, I’m pretty sure cazayoux’s question was hypothetical.
C
cazayoux
Guest
we have different pastors, but both are steeped and versed in the languages mentioned.
Mine agrees with me, his agrees with him.
What now?
michel
C
cazayoux
Guest
M
Matariel
Guest
Jesus Christ said, “the gates of Hell shal not prevail against it [the Church he established]”. Therefore, the Church He established must not have gotten off track.
Also, the Bible says that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of Truth”. odviously, it could not be if it were teaching heresy.
From this, we can see that the only Church dating from that time is the Catholic Church (or, arguably, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches).
Jesus didn’t found a Church during the 1600’s. Luther may have, Calvin may have, Knox may have, Menno may have.
But not Christ.
A
anamchara
Guest
Well thank you, that is a very sweet thing to say.
I’d stay clear of forums like this if you are interested in becoming Catholic (I wasn’t sure if that is the case,forgive me if I’m wrong) there’s a lot of bullies in here who think the way to conversion is to have the “truth” beat you into submission. 
M
MrS
Guest
Actually that is far from the truth awantz.Well thank you, that is a very sweet thing to say.
Or perhaps the poster would seek to avoid truths, and have you avoid them too, which often are hard to say, and even harder to hear.
You can’t be a religious wimp and be Catholic for long.
You can however listen to the truth and check it out yourself. Then see who the “bully” is.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Hi All!
I have read this thread with much interest. I am always amazed at the “comebacks” by non-C’s that are so obviously not supported by history or scripture. One such mention of kepha meaning small rock, etc… There is another thread called “How Can People Believe that Peter is the Rock and Still Not Be Catholic?” that really goes into much detail about the Hebrew/Aramaic transliterations, transliterations, etc… I think all of you will find it very informative and interesting - Link –http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277.
I am copying for you some of ronyodish’s posts in regards to the language. You should go to the thread if you want more.
The word kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) is a general term for rock or stone. By itself, apart from a context, it doesn’t tell us its size.
It can mean an immovable rock, like the rock of a cave in a hill. For instance in Matt. 27:60, we have the tomb of Jesus hewn in an immovable rock structure. The “b-kepa” or “in a rock” is shown in red:
ܘܤܡܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܒܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܓܠܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ
It can mean a medium sized rock where it can be moved, but you’d have to get help in moving it. For instance, in the same verse of Matt. 27:60, we have the stone that was rolled to act as a door of the tomb. The term rabtha (ܪܒܬܐ) which means “great” was added to it in order to indicate that it was a great stone:
ܘܤܡܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܒܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܓܠܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ
It can mean a small sized rock that can be picked up with one’s hand. For instance in Matt. 7:9, we have Jesus asking who would hand over a stone instead of bread to his son:
ܐܘ ܡܢܘ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܓܒܪܐ ܕܢܫܐܠܝܘܗܝ ܒܪܗ ܠܚܡܐ ܠܡܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܡܘܫܛ ܠܗ
Caesaria Phillipi has a large rock structure of Mt. Hermon where the cult of the pagan god Pan was practiced. Here is a picture of it. So, one uses the word kepa to call the rock of this mountainous structure, just as it would be used to call the rock of any similar structure.
However, as far as kepa being in the Syriac name of the place of Caesaria Phillipi, I’m not sure about this, because I’m not aware of Caesaria Phillipi by a Syriac name other than the rendering of it as Qesarya dPeeleepos.
Now, having said this, the backdrop of this large rocky structure at Caesaria Phillipi gives us a context for the passage. The Church was to be built on a strong foundational kepa, one that would confront and rival paganism, and one that can not be shaken and overcome by the jaws of death. Out of the three meanings above that can be used for kepa, the first meaning is more appropriate here for Mt. 16:18.
Someone asked “Kepa in the sentence the same as the Geek “ταύτῃ τῇ” must refer back to Petros.”
ronyodish continues…Here is how it is broken down:
The relevant words are: kepa (ܟܐܦܐ), w-'al (ܘܥܠ), hadhe (ܗܕܐ), kepa (ܟܐܦܐ)
first kepa means: Rock
W-'al means: and-on
hadhe means: this
second kepa means: rock
The second rock is equated with the first Rock by the connection “and-on this”. In order not to equate, that is, in order to make a contrast, one would use a “but” like this: Rock, but on this rock. The word bram (ܒܪܡ) which means “but” would be used to make the contrast.
So, since Jesus said w-'al hadhe (and-on this) instead of bram 'al hadhe (but on this), then Jesus is equating the second rock with the first Rock.
Quote:
I have stated that the word Kepa and the word Shu’wa are synonymous.
Yes, they’re synonymous as we can see for instance in Matt. 27:60 and Mark 15:46, where in the former we have b-kepa (ܒܟܐܦܐ), and the latter we have b-sho’a (ܒܫܘܥܐ); both terms mean “in a rock” and used to describe the rock structure that the tomb of Jesus was hewn in:
Matt. 27:60
ܘܤܡܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܒܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܓܠܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ
Mark 15:46
ܘܙܒܢ ܝܘܤܦ ܟܬܢܐ ܘܐܚܬܗ ܘܟܪܟܗ ܒܗ ܘܤܡܗ ܒܩܒܪܐ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܒܫܘܥܐ ܘܥܓܠ ܟܐܦܐ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܗ ܕܩܒܪܐ
Though I would say that kepa tends to be a more general term than sho’a, and also is more common.
Quote:
I have stated that the word Shu’wa represents a borrowing from Hebrew where as the word Kepa represents a native Aramaic word.
I’m not that familiar with Hebrew, so you may be right that sho’a may be a borrowing from a Hebrew word, I’m not sure. Kepa is very common and a native Aramaic word.
Quote:
Also I have stated that Syriac speaking Christians in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria are mostly in Churches that are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostalic Church under the leadership of the Pope in Rome. I used the numbers at the Catholic Near East Welfare Association but if you happen to know of other information please fill us in. I also know that the Assyrian Church of the East was recently in talk with the Vatican to re-enter the Catholic Church but the happenings in California may have put more conflict between us.
I also check the Catholic Near East Welfare Association sometimes, and it is a good site to check often. If we combine the people of the Aramaic Churches in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (those of the Antiochene and Assyro-Chaldean traditions), then those who are in full communion with Rome do in fact outnumber those who are not, due to the large membership of the Maronites.
Quote:
Also, does Syriac have three degrees in their demonstratives or only two like English? I admit that I now Greek has Three but I am not sure about Syriac.
In Syriac, there are two: this-these, that-those. I’m not aware of any third degree.
God bless,
Rony
I have read this thread with much interest. I am always amazed at the “comebacks” by non-C’s that are so obviously not supported by history or scripture. One such mention of kepha meaning small rock, etc… There is another thread called “How Can People Believe that Peter is the Rock and Still Not Be Catholic?” that really goes into much detail about the Hebrew/Aramaic transliterations, transliterations, etc… I think all of you will find it very informative and interesting - Link –http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277.
I am copying for you some of ronyodish’s posts in regards to the language. You should go to the thread if you want more.
The word kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) is a general term for rock or stone. By itself, apart from a context, it doesn’t tell us its size.
It can mean an immovable rock, like the rock of a cave in a hill. For instance in Matt. 27:60, we have the tomb of Jesus hewn in an immovable rock structure. The “b-kepa” or “in a rock” is shown in red:
ܘܤܡܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܒܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܓܠܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ
It can mean a medium sized rock where it can be moved, but you’d have to get help in moving it. For instance, in the same verse of Matt. 27:60, we have the stone that was rolled to act as a door of the tomb. The term rabtha (ܪܒܬܐ) which means “great” was added to it in order to indicate that it was a great stone:
ܘܤܡܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܒܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܓܠܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ
It can mean a small sized rock that can be picked up with one’s hand. For instance in Matt. 7:9, we have Jesus asking who would hand over a stone instead of bread to his son:
ܐܘ ܡܢܘ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܓܒܪܐ ܕܢܫܐܠܝܘܗܝ ܒܪܗ ܠܚܡܐ ܠܡܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܡܘܫܛ ܠܗ
Caesaria Phillipi has a large rock structure of Mt. Hermon where the cult of the pagan god Pan was practiced. Here is a picture of it. So, one uses the word kepa to call the rock of this mountainous structure, just as it would be used to call the rock of any similar structure.
However, as far as kepa being in the Syriac name of the place of Caesaria Phillipi, I’m not sure about this, because I’m not aware of Caesaria Phillipi by a Syriac name other than the rendering of it as Qesarya dPeeleepos.
Now, having said this, the backdrop of this large rocky structure at Caesaria Phillipi gives us a context for the passage. The Church was to be built on a strong foundational kepa, one that would confront and rival paganism, and one that can not be shaken and overcome by the jaws of death. Out of the three meanings above that can be used for kepa, the first meaning is more appropriate here for Mt. 16:18.
Someone asked “Kepa in the sentence the same as the Geek “ταύτῃ τῇ” must refer back to Petros.”
ronyodish continues…Here is how it is broken down:
The relevant words are: kepa (ܟܐܦܐ), w-'al (ܘܥܠ), hadhe (ܗܕܐ), kepa (ܟܐܦܐ)
first kepa means: Rock
W-'al means: and-on
hadhe means: this
second kepa means: rock
The second rock is equated with the first Rock by the connection “and-on this”. In order not to equate, that is, in order to make a contrast, one would use a “but” like this: Rock, but on this rock. The word bram (ܒܪܡ) which means “but” would be used to make the contrast.
So, since Jesus said w-'al hadhe (and-on this) instead of bram 'al hadhe (but on this), then Jesus is equating the second rock with the first Rock.
Quote:
I have stated that the word Kepa and the word Shu’wa are synonymous.
Yes, they’re synonymous as we can see for instance in Matt. 27:60 and Mark 15:46, where in the former we have b-kepa (ܒܟܐܦܐ), and the latter we have b-sho’a (ܒܫܘܥܐ); both terms mean “in a rock” and used to describe the rock structure that the tomb of Jesus was hewn in:
Matt. 27:60
ܘܤܡܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܚܕܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܒܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܓܠܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܐܪܡܝܘ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ
Mark 15:46
ܘܙܒܢ ܝܘܤܦ ܟܬܢܐ ܘܐܚܬܗ ܘܟܪܟܗ ܒܗ ܘܤܡܗ ܒܩܒܪܐ ܕܢܩܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܒܫܘܥܐ ܘܥܓܠ ܟܐܦܐ ܥܠ ܬܪܥܗ ܕܩܒܪܐ
Though I would say that kepa tends to be a more general term than sho’a, and also is more common.
Quote:
I have stated that the word Shu’wa represents a borrowing from Hebrew where as the word Kepa represents a native Aramaic word.
I’m not that familiar with Hebrew, so you may be right that sho’a may be a borrowing from a Hebrew word, I’m not sure. Kepa is very common and a native Aramaic word.
Quote:
Also I have stated that Syriac speaking Christians in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria are mostly in Churches that are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostalic Church under the leadership of the Pope in Rome. I used the numbers at the Catholic Near East Welfare Association but if you happen to know of other information please fill us in. I also know that the Assyrian Church of the East was recently in talk with the Vatican to re-enter the Catholic Church but the happenings in California may have put more conflict between us.
I also check the Catholic Near East Welfare Association sometimes, and it is a good site to check often. If we combine the people of the Aramaic Churches in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (those of the Antiochene and Assyro-Chaldean traditions), then those who are in full communion with Rome do in fact outnumber those who are not, due to the large membership of the Maronites.
Quote:
Also, does Syriac have three degrees in their demonstratives or only two like English? I admit that I now Greek has Three but I am not sure about Syriac.
In Syriac, there are two: this-these, that-those. I’m not aware of any third degree.
God bless,
Rony
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Here is another informative post from the same thread by ronyodish that continues that discussion. This is for the non-C’s that believe whatever you have been taught that the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek translations are. This is the same link that I posted in the previous post. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277
ronyodish begins:
I’m not that familiar with Hebrew. As far as Aramaic, I’ve never heard or read of an Aramaic petros prior to Christ’s day; and by saying this, I’m not saying that it is a fact that such a word never existed, rather, I’m saying I’ve never personally come across one. This is especially true for a petros that means “firstborn” which sounds rather strange to me, because we have a standard word for firstborn: bukhra. Bukhra shows up in the Old and New Testament of the Aramaic Peshitta.
However, since the time of Christ, there is a Patros (ܦܛܪܘܤ) that shows up in a very few Peshitta NT verses, notably in Acts 1:13, but this is recognized not as an Aramaic word, but as an Aramaic transliteration of Simon’s Greek name Petros. In other words, Simon’s identity in Greek as Petros is transliterated as Patros in Aramaic. Two verses later, in Acts 1:15, the common Aramaic name of Shim’on Kepa (ܫܡܥܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ) shows up. So, in our Peshitta (and in our Aramaic Church, heritage and culture in general), we have kept both Simon’s Aramaic name of Kepa meaning Rock, as well as, an Aramaic transliteration of the Greek name Petros as Patros.
With kepa and sho’a, they’re pretty much synonymous as I stated earlier by citing in Matthew and Mark the example of the rock structure where Jesus was buried, though kepa tends to be more general and can refer to any rocky or stony material. I forgot to also mention that kepa is a feminine term (though when used as a proper noun, it is genderless), whereas sho’a is masculine.
Quote:
Yes, I am aware that the Peshitta only uses kepha in Matthew 16:18, but my personal belief is that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek, and so can possibly be off from the original spoken Aramaic.
Unlike some of my Assyrian brethren, I personally don’t take the position of Peshitta Primacy, or even Aramaic Primacy, for most of the NT Scriptures, though I do think that Matthew was written in Aramaic to the Jews, as there is ancient testimony for this. Having said that, the original spoken dialogues (as you have mentioned) between Christ and the Apostles in the day to day common life of the region was indeed done in Aramaic.
Furthermore, as Catholics, we also rely on Holy Tradition, and not just on Holy Scripture alone. As Chaldean Catholics, we believe that our Catholic Church of the East, which flourished in Mesopotamia among the Aramaic people, represented a continuation with the early Israelite converts to Christianity. We have received the Holy Tradition of Christ and the Apostles in our Aramaic tongue, and have passed down this Tradition and language through out the generations to this day.
So, whether the Holy Scriptures were originally written in Aramaic or Greek is ultimately immaterial, because by Holy Tradition our Aramaic people received the Good News and Teachings of Jesus Christ in Aramaic (just as the Greeks received it in Greek), and we continue to celebrate this Tradition in the Liturgy and in the communal life. We read Scripture in Aramaic because that’s our traditional particular heritage (and Greeks, and Latins traditionally read it in their respective languages as well), and even if say it was 100% certain that all of the Scriptures were originally written in Greek, then we’d still read them in Aramaic, because we are an Aramaic people and always have been and always will be. Aramaic is the official language of our particular Church, which is in full communion with the Holy See of Rome.
Quote:
If, hypothetically, Jesus said kepha and then shu’a in Matthew 16:18, can the sentence still make grammatic sense?
If hypothetically Jesus said: “Kepa, w’al hadhe sho’a”, then as it is, it would be grammatically problematic for this reason:
hadhe is feminine, but sho’a is masculine, so hadhe would need to be changed to the masculine hana (ܗܢܐ)
So, if hypothetically Jesus said: “Kepa, w’al hana sho’a”, then it would be an awkward way to talk; however, there is a real example in the Peshitta that might perhaps be similar to this hypothetical. The example is not between a kepa and a sho’a, but between a kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) and an awna (ܐܒܢܐ) :
First, In Rom. 9:33, we have the normal showing of a kepa and a kepa in a sentence. we have a stumbling kepa, and a kepa of offence. Both of them are referring to Christ.
ܐܝܟ ܕܟܬܝܒ ܕܗܐ ܤܐܡ ܐܢܐ ܒܨܗܝܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܘܟܐܦܐ ܕܡܟܫܘܠܐ ܘܡܢ ܕܒܗ ܢܗܝܡܢ ܠܐ ܢܒܗܬ
But in 1 Pet. 2:8, we have the same passage being referenced, except we have a stumbling kepa, and an awna of trouble. Despite the difference here in the usage of terms, both are still referring to Christ. There is no contrast here, as if one is about Christ, and the other is not:
ܟܐܦܐ ܗܘ ܕܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܘܐܒܢܐ ܕܟܫܠܐ ܘܡܬܬܩܠܝܢ ܒܗ ܒܕܠܐ ܡܬܛܦܝܤܝܢ ܠܡܠܬܐ ܕܠܗܕܐ ܤܝܡܝܢ
So, even if hypothetically speaking, Jesus uses a kepa and a sho’a in Matt. 16:18, it still doesn’t tell us that there is a contrast in the verse, or that we are talking about two different things. We would still need a “but” for a contrast: “Kepa, bram ‘al hana sho’a”.
Quote:
How would it be translated into Greek?
I’m not sure how it would be translated into Greek, since I’m not that familiar with Greek.
I will make some further comments on the two links provided by kaycee tomorrow (God willing).
God bless,
Rony
ronyodish begins:
I’m not that familiar with Hebrew. As far as Aramaic, I’ve never heard or read of an Aramaic petros prior to Christ’s day; and by saying this, I’m not saying that it is a fact that such a word never existed, rather, I’m saying I’ve never personally come across one. This is especially true for a petros that means “firstborn” which sounds rather strange to me, because we have a standard word for firstborn: bukhra. Bukhra shows up in the Old and New Testament of the Aramaic Peshitta.
However, since the time of Christ, there is a Patros (ܦܛܪܘܤ) that shows up in a very few Peshitta NT verses, notably in Acts 1:13, but this is recognized not as an Aramaic word, but as an Aramaic transliteration of Simon’s Greek name Petros. In other words, Simon’s identity in Greek as Petros is transliterated as Patros in Aramaic. Two verses later, in Acts 1:15, the common Aramaic name of Shim’on Kepa (ܫܡܥܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ) shows up. So, in our Peshitta (and in our Aramaic Church, heritage and culture in general), we have kept both Simon’s Aramaic name of Kepa meaning Rock, as well as, an Aramaic transliteration of the Greek name Petros as Patros.
With kepa and sho’a, they’re pretty much synonymous as I stated earlier by citing in Matthew and Mark the example of the rock structure where Jesus was buried, though kepa tends to be more general and can refer to any rocky or stony material. I forgot to also mention that kepa is a feminine term (though when used as a proper noun, it is genderless), whereas sho’a is masculine.
Quote:
Yes, I am aware that the Peshitta only uses kepha in Matthew 16:18, but my personal belief is that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek, and so can possibly be off from the original spoken Aramaic.
Unlike some of my Assyrian brethren, I personally don’t take the position of Peshitta Primacy, or even Aramaic Primacy, for most of the NT Scriptures, though I do think that Matthew was written in Aramaic to the Jews, as there is ancient testimony for this. Having said that, the original spoken dialogues (as you have mentioned) between Christ and the Apostles in the day to day common life of the region was indeed done in Aramaic.
Furthermore, as Catholics, we also rely on Holy Tradition, and not just on Holy Scripture alone. As Chaldean Catholics, we believe that our Catholic Church of the East, which flourished in Mesopotamia among the Aramaic people, represented a continuation with the early Israelite converts to Christianity. We have received the Holy Tradition of Christ and the Apostles in our Aramaic tongue, and have passed down this Tradition and language through out the generations to this day.
So, whether the Holy Scriptures were originally written in Aramaic or Greek is ultimately immaterial, because by Holy Tradition our Aramaic people received the Good News and Teachings of Jesus Christ in Aramaic (just as the Greeks received it in Greek), and we continue to celebrate this Tradition in the Liturgy and in the communal life. We read Scripture in Aramaic because that’s our traditional particular heritage (and Greeks, and Latins traditionally read it in their respective languages as well), and even if say it was 100% certain that all of the Scriptures were originally written in Greek, then we’d still read them in Aramaic, because we are an Aramaic people and always have been and always will be. Aramaic is the official language of our particular Church, which is in full communion with the Holy See of Rome.
Quote:
If, hypothetically, Jesus said kepha and then shu’a in Matthew 16:18, can the sentence still make grammatic sense?
If hypothetically Jesus said: “Kepa, w’al hadhe sho’a”, then as it is, it would be grammatically problematic for this reason:
hadhe is feminine, but sho’a is masculine, so hadhe would need to be changed to the masculine hana (ܗܢܐ)
So, if hypothetically Jesus said: “Kepa, w’al hana sho’a”, then it would be an awkward way to talk; however, there is a real example in the Peshitta that might perhaps be similar to this hypothetical. The example is not between a kepa and a sho’a, but between a kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) and an awna (ܐܒܢܐ) :
First, In Rom. 9:33, we have the normal showing of a kepa and a kepa in a sentence. we have a stumbling kepa, and a kepa of offence. Both of them are referring to Christ.
ܐܝܟ ܕܟܬܝܒ ܕܗܐ ܤܐܡ ܐܢܐ ܒܨܗܝܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܘܟܐܦܐ ܕܡܟܫܘܠܐ ܘܡܢ ܕܒܗ ܢܗܝܡܢ ܠܐ ܢܒܗܬ
But in 1 Pet. 2:8, we have the same passage being referenced, except we have a stumbling kepa, and an awna of trouble. Despite the difference here in the usage of terms, both are still referring to Christ. There is no contrast here, as if one is about Christ, and the other is not:
ܟܐܦܐ ܗܘ ܕܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܘܐܒܢܐ ܕܟܫܠܐ ܘܡܬܬܩܠܝܢ ܒܗ ܒܕܠܐ ܡܬܛܦܝܤܝܢ ܠܡܠܬܐ ܕܠܗܕܐ ܤܝܡܝܢ
So, even if hypothetically speaking, Jesus uses a kepa and a sho’a in Matt. 16:18, it still doesn’t tell us that there is a contrast in the verse, or that we are talking about two different things. We would still need a “but” for a contrast: “Kepa, bram ‘al hana sho’a”.
Quote:
How would it be translated into Greek?
I’m not sure how it would be translated into Greek, since I’m not that familiar with Greek.
I will make some further comments on the two links provided by kaycee tomorrow (God willing).
God bless,
Rony
C
Cinette
Guest
Hi Awantz
I notice all the to-ing and fro-ing of posts and you seem to be getting nowhere. I am sure you are serious about seeking the truth otherwise you would not be on Catholic Answers. There is no substitute for speaking face to face. You can see each other’s expressions and that communicates a lot. However, we have to be limited to words only here and that means that we have to keep an open mind and listen to each other. Ask, Read, Ponder, Analyse, Pray and Love.
I hope that you will go away enlightened
Blessings
Cinette
:hug3:
I notice all the to-ing and fro-ing of posts and you seem to be getting nowhere. I am sure you are serious about seeking the truth otherwise you would not be on Catholic Answers. There is no substitute for speaking face to face. You can see each other’s expressions and that communicates a lot. However, we have to be limited to words only here and that means that we have to keep an open mind and listen to each other. Ask, Read, Ponder, Analyse, Pray and Love.
I hope that you will go away enlightened
Blessings
Cinette
:hug3:
- Status